Search This Blog

Writ - jurisdiction -Sec.89 of C.P.C. - alternative disputes resolution out of court - Dispute between two private parties about the execution of contractual works - arbitration clause that"Twins and operator have agreed to appoint Managing Director of Andhra Pradesh Technology Services Ltd., Sri Suresh Chanda, I.A.S., to be the Adjudicator and in the event of his willingness to go out of adjudicatorship, a new adjudicator can be appointed by mutual agreement." - single judge dismissed the writ petition - DB by invoking sec. 89 of C.P.C. refer all the disputes which emanate from the tripartite agreement amongst the parties to the sole Arbitrator, Mr. Justice A. Gopal Reddy, a retired Judge of this Court, who will make and publish an Award within a period of five months from the date of entering upon the reference. = M/s. RAM Informatics Limited Having its office at 8-2-1/B/1, Srinagar Colony Road Punjagutta, Hyderabad Rep. by its Director P.S. Raman... Appellant CMS Computers Ltd., Having its office at CMS Lake Road Centre No.70, Lake Road, Kaycee Industrial Compound Bhandup West (Mumbai 400 078) Rep. by its Managing Director and another... Respondents =2014 (Feb.Part) judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=10867

Writ - jurisdiction -Sec.89 of C.P.C. - alternative disputes resolution out of court - Dispute between two private parties about the execution of contractual works - arbitration clause that"Twins and operator have agreed to appoint Managing Director of Andhra Pradesh Technology Services Ltd., Sri Suresh Chanda, I.A.S., to be the Adjudicator and in the event of his willingness to go out of adjudicatorship, a new adjudicator can be appointed by mutual agreement." - single judge dismissed the writ petition - DB of High court by invoking sec. 89 of C.P.C. refer all the disputes which emanate from the tripartite agreement amongst the parties to the sole Arbitrator, Mr. Justice A.Gopal Reddy, a retired Judge of this Court, who will make and publish an Award within a period of five months from the date of entering upon the reference. =

The appellant before us filed the writ petition against CMS ComputersLimited,which is admittedly a private identity not having any instrumentalityof the State in any manner whatsoever within the Article 12 of the Constitutionof India, nor even in our view is the 'other authorities' within the meaning ofArticle 226 of the Constitution of India. Why we say so, there has been nopleading as such in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition beforethe learned trial Judge.=We have gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learned trialJudge. We are in full agreement with His Lordship that the matter of thisnature cannot be decided by Writ Court.We would have ended the matter here dismissing the writ appeal, but wethink we will be failing to discharge our duty if we do not consider theprovisions of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which have beenadopted by Rule 24 of the Writ Rules framed by this Court.Before the introduction of Section 89 of CPC, there was no mechanism forgetting the disputes involved in pending litigation resolved outside the Courtafter repealing Arbitration Act, 1940. Of course, in the Arbitration Act, 1940such provision was there, but in the present Act - the Arbitration andConciliation Act, 1996 there is no such provision. Section 89 of CPC hadsupplemented and in true sense has restored the provisions of Section 21 of theArbitration Act, 1940. Under the circumstances, we think that Section 89 of CPCshall be invoked in this case. Section 89 of CPC provides as follows:"89. Settlement of disputes outside the Court.-(1) Where it appears to theCourt that there exist elements of a settlement which may be acceptable to theparties, the Court shall formulate the terms of settlement and give them to theparties for their observations and after receiving the observations of theparties, the court may reformulate the terms of a possible settlement and referthe same for -(a) arbitration;(b) conciliation;(c) judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat; or(d) mediation. (2) Where a dispute has been referred -(a) for arbitration or conciliation, the provisions of the Arbitration andConciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply as if the proceedings forarbitration or conciliation were referred for settlement under the provisions ofthat Act;(b) to Lok Adalat, the Court shall refer the same to the Lok Adalat inaccordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the LegalServices Authority Act, 1987 (39 of 1987) and all other provisions of that Actshall apply in respect of the dispute so referred to the Lok Adalat;(c) for judicial settlement, the Court shall refer the same to a suitableinstitution or person and such institution or person shall be deemed to be a LokAdalat and all the provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (39 of1987) shall apply as if the dispute were referred to a Lok Adalat under theprovisions of that Act;(d) for mediation, the Court shall effect a compromise between the parties andshall follow such procedure as may be prescribed."9. Taking note of the provision, we find there is a clause, being clause 8.4,in the tripartite agreement, which is set out hereunder:"Twins and operator have agreed to appoint Managing Director of Andhra PradeshTechnology Services Ltd., Sri Suresh Chanda, I.A.S., to be the Adjudicator andin the event of his willingness to go out of adjudicatorship, a new adjudicatorcan be appointed by mutual agreement." 10. It appears on a close reading of the clause that all the parties haveessentially agreed for adjudication of the matter by the adjudicator, named SriSuresh Chanda, I.A.S, Managing Director of Andhra Pradesh Technology Services Limited. According to us, the aforesaid provision is nothing but initiation ofthe parties of getting the matter resolved outside Court by alternativemechanism. However the said Clause is not clearly understandable as its natureor character of alternative disputes resolution mechanism. Section 89 of CPCprovides for various options in absence of arbitration agreement, and the Courtcan on agreement of the parties creates amongst other an arbitration mechanism.When we noticed the intention of the parties for adjudication of the disputesoutside the Court, we think that the option of the arbitration would be best onehaving regard to the nature of the disputes involved. We are happy to note thatall the parties have agreed to get their disputes resolved by arbitrationmechanism. 11. Under the circumstances, we refer all the disputes which emanate from thetripartite agreement amongst the parties to the sole Arbitrator, Mr. Justice A.Gopal Reddy, a retired Judge of this Court, who will make and publish an Awardwithin a period of five months from the date of entering upon the reference.The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.2014 (Feb.Part) judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=10867

This writ appeal is filed against the judgment and order of the learned
trial Judge, dt.12.12.2013 by which the writ petition has been dismissed.
2. All the parties are present before us. We admit the appeal and decide the
matter finally after consent of all the parties.
3. The appellant before us filed the writ petition against CMS ComputersLimited,which is admittedly a private identity not having any instrumentalityof the State in any manner whatsoever within the Article 12 of the Constitutionof India, nor even in our view is the 'other authorities' within the meaning ofArticle 226 of the Constitution of India. Why we say so, there has been nopleading as such in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition beforethe learned trial Judge.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submits that the observations
of the learned trial Judge are not correct and the learned trial Judge should
have entertained the writ petition and granted the relief.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents support the judgment and submit
jointly that highly disputed questions of fact are mentioned in the writ
petition and these disputes emanate from a contractual agreement arrived atbetween the parties to execute the works in private law.
6. We have gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learned trialJudge. We are in full agreement with His Lordship that the matter of thisnature cannot be decided by Writ Court.
We are also of the view that even if
for arguments sake, CMS Computers Limited is assumed 'other authority' within
the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, nature of the
transaction between the appellant on one hand and CMC Computers Limited and
Government of Andhra Pradesh on the other hand is absolutely that of commercial
and private character. According to us, 'other authorities' as defined under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India are amenable to Writ jurisdiction only
when it discharges statutory duty of public character. In this case the
transaction is not in relation to the duty of public character to be discharged.
Therefore, the decision of the Supreme Court relied on by the learned counsel
for the appellant in Zee Telefilms Ltd. and another v. Union of India andothers1 is not applicable, as has been correctly observed by the learned trial
Judge. We would have ended the matter here dismissing the writ appeal, but wethink we will be failing to discharge our duty if we do not consider theprovisions of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which have beenadopted by Rule 24 of the Writ Rules framed by this Court.
7. The confidence and faith of the public litigant in the judiciary ispreserved, in our opinion the moment the litigant gets justice as early aspossible, whether by the regular Court or by alternative method. After all, theadministration of justice as a whole has been rested with the judiciary and thejudiciary is to take up such measure for which the people will get justicewithout any hassles and without being entangled unnecessarily by proceduralformalities.
8. Before the introduction of Section 89 of CPC, there was no mechanism forgetting the disputes involved in pending litigation resolved outside the Courtafter repealing Arbitration Act, 1940. Of course, in the Arbitration Act, 1940such provision was there, but in the present Act - the Arbitration andConciliation Act, 1996 there is no such provision. Section 89 of CPC hadsupplemented and in true sense has restored the provisions of Section 21 of theArbitration Act, 1940. Under the circumstances, we think that Section 89 of CPCshall be invoked in this case. Section 89 of CPC provides as follows:"89. Settlement of disputes outside the Court.-(1) Where it appears to theCourt that there exist elements of a settlement which may be acceptable to theparties, the Court shall formulate the terms of settlement and give them to theparties for their observations and after receiving the observations of theparties, the court may reformulate the terms of a possible settlement and referthe same for -(a) arbitration;(b) conciliation;(c) judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat; or(d) mediation. (2) Where a dispute has been referred -(a) for arbitration or conciliation, the provisions of the Arbitration andConciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply as if the proceedings forarbitration or conciliation were referred for settlement under the provisions ofthat Act;(b) to Lok Adalat, the Court shall refer the same to the Lok Adalat inaccordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the LegalServices Authority Act, 1987 (39 of 1987) and all other provisions of that Actshall apply in respect of the dispute so referred to the Lok Adalat;(c) for judicial settlement, the Court shall refer the same to a suitableinstitution or person and such institution or person shall be deemed to be a LokAdalat and all the provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (39 of1987) shall apply as if the dispute were referred to a Lok Adalat under theprovisions of that Act;(d) for mediation, the Court shall effect a compromise between the parties andshall follow such procedure as may be prescribed."

9. Taking note of the provision, we find there is a clause, being clause 8.4,
in the tripartite agreement, which is set out hereunder:"Twins and operator have agreed to appoint Managing Director of Andhra PradeshTechnology Services Ltd., Sri Suresh Chanda, I.A.S., to be the Adjudicator andin the event of his willingness to go out of adjudicatorship, a new adjudicatorcan be appointed by mutual agreement."

10. It appears on a close reading of the clause that all the parties have
essentially agreed for adjudication of the matter by the adjudicator, named Sri
Suresh Chanda, I.A.S, Managing Director of Andhra Pradesh Technology Services
Limited. According to us, the aforesaid provision is nothing but initiation of
the parties of getting the matter resolved outside Court by alternative
mechanism. However the said Clause is not clearly understandable as its nature
or character of alternative disputes resolution mechanism. Section 89 of CPC
provides for various options in absence of arbitration agreement, and the Court
can on agreement of the parties creates amongst other an arbitration mechanism.
When we noticed the intention of the parties for adjudication of the disputes
outside the Court, we think that the option of the arbitration would be best one
having regard to the nature of the disputes involved. We are happy to note that
all the parties have agreed to get their disputes resolved by arbitration
mechanism.
11. Under the circumstances, we refer all the disputes which emanate from thetripartite agreement amongst the parties to the sole Arbitrator, Mr. Justice A.Gopal Reddy, a retired Judge of this Court, who will make and publish an Awardwithin a period of five months from the date of entering upon the reference.
12. The learned Arbitrator will fix his own remuneration and also costs and
expenses of the arbitration proceedings upon deliberation and consultation with
the parties.
13. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. There will be no order as tocosts.
14. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________
K.J.SENGUPTA, CJ
_______________________
SANJAY KUMAR, J
7.2.2014

The Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Chandra Kumar Appeal Suit No.144 of 2012 Dated 9th August, 2012Judgment: The appellant filed this appeal challenging Order, dated27-01-2012, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, refusing to register the suit filed by him on the ground that the same is barred by limitation . The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance basing on agreement of sale, dated 13-11-2008. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale, the balance amount of Rs.4 lakhs out of the total sale price of Rs.9 lakhs was to be paid within two months from the date of expiry of the limitation of the said agreement of sale. The case of the appellant is that though he had been requesting the respondent to receive the balance sale consideration and register the sale deed in his favour, the respondent did not come forward; that therefore, he got issued a legal notice to the respondent on12-10-2011; that the respondent acknowled…

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable =in VadirajNaggappa Vernekar (deceased by L.Rs) v. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate (supra), it is held as follows: "17. It is now well settled that the power to recall any witness underOrder 18 Rule 17 CPC can be exercised by the Court either on its own motion oron an application filed by any of the parties to the suit, but as indicatedhereinabove, such power is to be invoked not to fill up the lacunae in theevidence of the witness which has already been recorded but to clear anyambiguity that may have arisen during the course of his examination. Of course,if the evidence on re-examination of a witness has a bearing on the ultimatedecision of the suit, it is always within the discretion of the Trial Court topermit recall of such a witness for re-examination-in-chief with permis…

The 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No.101 of 2011 in the Court of III
Additional District Judge, Tirupati against the appellants and respondents 2 to
5 herein, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule
property, a hotel at Srikalahasti, Chittoor District. He pleaded that the land
on which the hotel was constructed was owned by the appellants and respondents 2
and 3, and his wife by name Saroja, and all of them gave the property on lease
to M/s. Swarna Restaurant Private Limited, 4th respondent herein, under a
document …